[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 5006 status

To: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>
Subject: Re: RFC 5006 status
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:52:36 +0100
Cc: IPv6 v6ops <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <20100318092556.GF69383@Space.Net>
References: <C7C67F1D.37A5F%alain_durand@cable.comcast.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1003180441110.9819@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20100318081445.GC69383@Space.Net> <20100318.101539.74725695.sthaug@nethelp.no> <20100318092556.GF69383@Space.Net>

HI,

Le 18 mars 2010 à 10:25, Gert Doering a écrit :

> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:15:39AM +0100, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>> Note that this includes having DHCPv6 delivering the default gateway.
> 
> This is not really important for us (no cable deployments, and the DSL
> deployment is PPP based, so the default gateway is always "the other end
> of the pipe" anyway).  But I understand that other networks need this,
> so I'm certainly not opposing this.

Some time ago, Dan Wing proposed (I don't remember where) that RAs could contain DHCP options that are worth advertising to all hosts.

If generalized, this would permit to avoid reinventing in RAs options that are available in DHCPv6, and yet make the DHCPv6 protocol to be in general unnecessary.

The simplicity of this approach is IMHO very attractive.

Any thoughts?

RD

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>

References:
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: "Durand, Alain" <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: sthaug@nethelp.no
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC 5006 status
Next by Date: Re: RFC 5006 status
Previous by thread: Re: RFC 5006 status
Next by thread: Re: RFC 5006 status
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread